Tweet
THE YEAR THE CULTURE WARS WENT GLOBAL
Spiked
Dec 23 2014
Frank Furedi
Sociologist and commentator
A century after the outbreak of the First World War, it seems humanity
is confronted with new cultural disputes that have the potential to
mutate into violent conflicts.
The experience of the past century has demonstrated that the
politicisation of culture always ends badly. And little wonder:
cultural crusaders create a climate of intolerance towards the norms
and values of their cultural targets. They are often censorious and
seek to devalue their opponents. In its more extreme forms, cultural
politics leads to the mutual dehumanisation of the antagonists.
Such dehumanising sentiments were far too evident a century ago. The
Armenian genocide of 1915 represented the most extreme and destructive
manifestation of this lethal synthesis of culture and militarism.
Tragically, almost a century later, the spectre of culturally motivated
violence haunts that region once more. Until recently, the great
Armenian church in Deir el-Zour in Syria served as a memorial to the
mass killings that occurred during the Great War. Earlier this year,
however, in a savage act of vandalism, a group of Islamists blew the
church up. They destroyed its archives, and the bones of hundreds of
victims of the 1915 massacre were left strewn in the streets.
Today, the most extreme exponents of the politicisation of culture
are the jihadist zealots who regard the lives of those who do not
share their faith as unworthy of moral value. But the depravity and
barbarism of a movement such as the Islamic State can obscure the
disturbing reality: namely, that the politicisation of culture, and
its intolerant consequences, is gaining strength across the world. It
has certainly contributed to the hardening of the rivalry between
the West and Russia. And it is this, the emergence of a caricature
of the Cold War, that is arguably the most significant international
development of 2014.
It seems that disputes about lifestyle, family life, sexual orientation
and the nature of community life are no longer confined to the
domestic sphere. The Culture Wars have gone global. Muslim jihadists
are not just fighting with bombs; they are directly assaulting Western
liberal values and denouncing them as immoral. For his part, Russian
president Vladimir Putin has sought to present himself as fighting
for traditionalism and the Christian way of life.
In turn, Western diplomats have criticised Russia for its patriarchal
and sexist culture.
Global crusaders
There is little doubt that the Russian government is a willing
participant in what it regards as a war over moral values and beliefs.
In September 2012, Putin stated that 'cultural self-awareness,
spiritual and moral values [and] codes of values are an area of
intense competition'. He said that to 'influence the worldviews of
entire ethnic groups, the desire to subject them to one's will, to
force one's system of values and beliefs upon them, is an absolute
reality, just like the fight for mineral resources that many nations,
ours included, experience'.
In recent years, the Putin regime has claimed that the Russian way of
life and its values have been the target of hostile foreign interests.
The Russian government has expressed concern about the influence of
the Western media over its national life. It regards Western NGOs
operating in Russia as agents of alien interests, which is why in
June 2012 it passed a law that requires any Russian NGO funded from
abroad to register itself as a 'foreign agent'.
Putin self-consciously cultivates the image of Russia as a moral
crusader fighting for the survival of human civilisation. Last
December, in his annual state-of-the-nation speech, he responded to
Western criticisms of Russia's attitude to homosexuality by lamenting
the decline of morality in the West. He drew attention to what he
perceived as the morally disorienting consequences of Western social
engineering: 'This destruction of traditional values from above not
only entails negative consequences for society, but is also inherently
anti-democratic because it is based on an abstract notion and runs
counter to the will of the majority of people.' He claimed that
traditional family values were the only effective defence against
'genderless and infertile... so-called tolerance'.
Although ostensibly directed at the Russian public, Putin's
denunciation of the 'genderless and infertile' lifestyles of Westerners
was also directed at a global audience. Just a few days before the
delivery of this speech, an influential Kremlin-linked think-tank
published a report titled Putin: World Conservatism's New Leader. The
report sought to present Putin as the global saviour of traditional
values. The report claimed that ordinary people throughout the
world yearn for the stability and security offered by traditional
values. It argued that people believe in the traditional family and
regard multiculturalism with suspicion. Dmitry Abzalov, a spokesman for
the think-tank, told the press that 'it is important for most people
to preserve their way of life, their lifestyle, their traditions',
and, because of that, they 'tend toward conservatism'.
Western commentators frequently claim that Russia is waging a cultural
conflict against tolerant, liberal and democratic values. It is
certainly the case that of all the protagonists, Russia is the most
self-conscious exponent of a values-based public narrative. But
Moscow's use of a moralistic discourse of tradition and Russian
nationalism should be seen as a variant of the values-driven ideology
of Western governments themselves.
Western institutions and governments are hardly shy when it comes
to demanding that their values and lifestyles be adhered to by
all societies. In fact, societies and cultures that do not adhere
to Western values face pressure to fall into line. Take the case
of Japan. During the summer, the United Nations Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination exhorted the Japanese government
to pass an American-style law that would criminalise certain forms
of speech as hate speech. What is remarkable about this intervention
is that it was not confined to calling on the Japanese to deal with
racial discrimination; it actually prescribed an Anglo-American legal
innovation for the policing of free speech in Japan. It is entirely
legitimate to criticise a nation's government for failing to deal with
racial discrimination. However, the demand that a sovereign nation
regulate public speech in accordance with the values and methods of
Western societies is a form of cultural colonialism.
The problem with international cultural crusades is not the actual
values - many of the sentiments promoted by Western institutions are
worthy and enlightened ones. No, the problem is that such crusades
assume that Western states possess the moral authority to question,
undermine and change the laws and values of communities throughout
the world. When diplomacy and geopolitics become entwined with the
attempt to affirm the moral superiority of a way of life, the outcome
is always unpredictable.
The real danger with the globalisation of the Culture Wars is that it
threatens to confuse diplomatic problems with existential questions
that touch on a people's way of life. Take the case of US president
Barack Obama's high-profile address to European youth. In this speech,
he linked his criticism of Russia's behaviour in the Crimea with
criticism of those who oppose his political agenda in the US. He
celebrated the politics of identity and permissiveness, and denounced
the 'older, more traditional view of power'. He added that 'instead of
targeting our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can use our laws
to protect their rights'. In all but name, Russia served as a proxy
for Obama's desire to attack his traditionalist foes back in the US.
When domestic cultural conflicts in the US are recast on the
global stage, diplomacy may become hostage to them. Diplomacy could
become, in short, an extension of a domestic moralistic crusade. Such
international values conflicts may appear relatively benign compared to
those that led to the outbreak of the First World War. But do not be
fooled. Cultural rivalries, and disputes over lifestyles and values,
are extremely difficult to resolve because they are intimately linked
to basic moral questions, even to the meaning of good and evil.
As a result, these disputes are rarely susceptible to pragmatic
solutions and can easily escalate into dangerous rivalries. Let
1914 be a warning to all those who presume to lecture other nations'
inhabitants about how to live their lives.
Frank Furedi's latest book, First World War: Still No End in Sight,
is published by Bloomsbury.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-year-the-culture-wars-went-global/16398#.VJm5XIABsA
From: A. Papazian
Spiked
Dec 23 2014
Frank Furedi
Sociologist and commentator
A century after the outbreak of the First World War, it seems humanity
is confronted with new cultural disputes that have the potential to
mutate into violent conflicts.
The experience of the past century has demonstrated that the
politicisation of culture always ends badly. And little wonder:
cultural crusaders create a climate of intolerance towards the norms
and values of their cultural targets. They are often censorious and
seek to devalue their opponents. In its more extreme forms, cultural
politics leads to the mutual dehumanisation of the antagonists.
Such dehumanising sentiments were far too evident a century ago. The
Armenian genocide of 1915 represented the most extreme and destructive
manifestation of this lethal synthesis of culture and militarism.
Tragically, almost a century later, the spectre of culturally motivated
violence haunts that region once more. Until recently, the great
Armenian church in Deir el-Zour in Syria served as a memorial to the
mass killings that occurred during the Great War. Earlier this year,
however, in a savage act of vandalism, a group of Islamists blew the
church up. They destroyed its archives, and the bones of hundreds of
victims of the 1915 massacre were left strewn in the streets.
Today, the most extreme exponents of the politicisation of culture
are the jihadist zealots who regard the lives of those who do not
share their faith as unworthy of moral value. But the depravity and
barbarism of a movement such as the Islamic State can obscure the
disturbing reality: namely, that the politicisation of culture, and
its intolerant consequences, is gaining strength across the world. It
has certainly contributed to the hardening of the rivalry between
the West and Russia. And it is this, the emergence of a caricature
of the Cold War, that is arguably the most significant international
development of 2014.
It seems that disputes about lifestyle, family life, sexual orientation
and the nature of community life are no longer confined to the
domestic sphere. The Culture Wars have gone global. Muslim jihadists
are not just fighting with bombs; they are directly assaulting Western
liberal values and denouncing them as immoral. For his part, Russian
president Vladimir Putin has sought to present himself as fighting
for traditionalism and the Christian way of life.
In turn, Western diplomats have criticised Russia for its patriarchal
and sexist culture.
Global crusaders
There is little doubt that the Russian government is a willing
participant in what it regards as a war over moral values and beliefs.
In September 2012, Putin stated that 'cultural self-awareness,
spiritual and moral values [and] codes of values are an area of
intense competition'. He said that to 'influence the worldviews of
entire ethnic groups, the desire to subject them to one's will, to
force one's system of values and beliefs upon them, is an absolute
reality, just like the fight for mineral resources that many nations,
ours included, experience'.
In recent years, the Putin regime has claimed that the Russian way of
life and its values have been the target of hostile foreign interests.
The Russian government has expressed concern about the influence of
the Western media over its national life. It regards Western NGOs
operating in Russia as agents of alien interests, which is why in
June 2012 it passed a law that requires any Russian NGO funded from
abroad to register itself as a 'foreign agent'.
Putin self-consciously cultivates the image of Russia as a moral
crusader fighting for the survival of human civilisation. Last
December, in his annual state-of-the-nation speech, he responded to
Western criticisms of Russia's attitude to homosexuality by lamenting
the decline of morality in the West. He drew attention to what he
perceived as the morally disorienting consequences of Western social
engineering: 'This destruction of traditional values from above not
only entails negative consequences for society, but is also inherently
anti-democratic because it is based on an abstract notion and runs
counter to the will of the majority of people.' He claimed that
traditional family values were the only effective defence against
'genderless and infertile... so-called tolerance'.
Although ostensibly directed at the Russian public, Putin's
denunciation of the 'genderless and infertile' lifestyles of Westerners
was also directed at a global audience. Just a few days before the
delivery of this speech, an influential Kremlin-linked think-tank
published a report titled Putin: World Conservatism's New Leader. The
report sought to present Putin as the global saviour of traditional
values. The report claimed that ordinary people throughout the
world yearn for the stability and security offered by traditional
values. It argued that people believe in the traditional family and
regard multiculturalism with suspicion. Dmitry Abzalov, a spokesman for
the think-tank, told the press that 'it is important for most people
to preserve their way of life, their lifestyle, their traditions',
and, because of that, they 'tend toward conservatism'.
Western commentators frequently claim that Russia is waging a cultural
conflict against tolerant, liberal and democratic values. It is
certainly the case that of all the protagonists, Russia is the most
self-conscious exponent of a values-based public narrative. But
Moscow's use of a moralistic discourse of tradition and Russian
nationalism should be seen as a variant of the values-driven ideology
of Western governments themselves.
Western institutions and governments are hardly shy when it comes
to demanding that their values and lifestyles be adhered to by
all societies. In fact, societies and cultures that do not adhere
to Western values face pressure to fall into line. Take the case
of Japan. During the summer, the United Nations Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination exhorted the Japanese government
to pass an American-style law that would criminalise certain forms
of speech as hate speech. What is remarkable about this intervention
is that it was not confined to calling on the Japanese to deal with
racial discrimination; it actually prescribed an Anglo-American legal
innovation for the policing of free speech in Japan. It is entirely
legitimate to criticise a nation's government for failing to deal with
racial discrimination. However, the demand that a sovereign nation
regulate public speech in accordance with the values and methods of
Western societies is a form of cultural colonialism.
The problem with international cultural crusades is not the actual
values - many of the sentiments promoted by Western institutions are
worthy and enlightened ones. No, the problem is that such crusades
assume that Western states possess the moral authority to question,
undermine and change the laws and values of communities throughout
the world. When diplomacy and geopolitics become entwined with the
attempt to affirm the moral superiority of a way of life, the outcome
is always unpredictable.
The real danger with the globalisation of the Culture Wars is that it
threatens to confuse diplomatic problems with existential questions
that touch on a people's way of life. Take the case of US president
Barack Obama's high-profile address to European youth. In this speech,
he linked his criticism of Russia's behaviour in the Crimea with
criticism of those who oppose his political agenda in the US. He
celebrated the politics of identity and permissiveness, and denounced
the 'older, more traditional view of power'. He added that 'instead of
targeting our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can use our laws
to protect their rights'. In all but name, Russia served as a proxy
for Obama's desire to attack his traditionalist foes back in the US.
When domestic cultural conflicts in the US are recast on the
global stage, diplomacy may become hostage to them. Diplomacy could
become, in short, an extension of a domestic moralistic crusade. Such
international values conflicts may appear relatively benign compared to
those that led to the outbreak of the First World War. But do not be
fooled. Cultural rivalries, and disputes over lifestyles and values,
are extremely difficult to resolve because they are intimately linked
to basic moral questions, even to the meaning of good and evil.
As a result, these disputes are rarely susceptible to pragmatic
solutions and can easily escalate into dangerous rivalries. Let
1914 be a warning to all those who presume to lecture other nations'
inhabitants about how to live their lives.
Frank Furedi's latest book, First World War: Still No End in Sight,
is published by Bloomsbury.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-year-the-culture-wars-went-global/16398#.VJm5XIABsA
From: A. Papazian